ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2021
The role of a trauma review system and development of intra-operative checklists in improving the quality of fracture fixations in a high volume tertiary centre.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn high volume centres, audits are essential to ensure good surgical techniques and fracture fixations to avoid complications, revision surgeries and poor outcomes. A method to assess fixations for fractures of different regions employing different implants and surgical demands is a challenge. We present here a simple method of review and follow-up work flow of more than 6000 fixations every year that helped in improving outcomes and also provide training for residents and junior staff. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe results of 6348 fracture fixations in 2014, led to a trauma review system in January 2015 to classify all fracture fixations by senior consultants into three categories: category A (good fixations); category B (acceptable fixations; need further follow-up); category C (poor/unacceptable fixations needing revision) combined with a teaching program. A strategy was evolved that included the following practices: (1) identifying 'red flag' fractures that led to frequent failures, (2) routine senior surgeons' involvement in such fractures, (3) evolving 'intra-operative checklists', (4) requirement of senior surgeons' intervention if there was a 'fiddle time' of more than 20 min, and (5) approval of post-fixation c-arm image by a senior person before closure. The impact of these rules on the fixations for 2015, 2016 and 2017 were prospectively analysed.
resultsIn the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 the number of fracture fixations performed were 6579, 6978 and 7012, respectively. There was a significant increase (p < 0.001) in the number of category A fixations (87.7%, 94.6% and 96.3% in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively) and also a decrease in the number of category C fixations (2.23%, 0.7% and 0.2% in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively). The quality of fixations of the 'red flag' fractures also improved.
conclusionWe present here a very effective, tested, simple and easily reproducible method of audit and follow-up work flow that can be used in all high turnover trauma centres to improve outcomes and can also serve as a teaching resource for junior staff. STUDY
designProspective study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.